Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
.s. consulate in benghazi and said if you nominate susan rice to be secretary of state, they will do everything in their power to block her nomination as senator graham said, he simply doesn't trust ambassador rice after what she said about benghazi. i would like your reaction to that and would those threats deter you from making a nomination like that? >> well, first of all, i'm not going to comment at this point on various nominations i'll put forward to fill out my cabinet for the second term. those are things that are still being discussed. but let me say specifically about susan rice, she has done exemplary work. she has represented the united states and our interests in the united nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. as i said before, she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. and i'm happy to have that discussion with them. but for them to go after the u.n. a
. >> that leads us now to susan rice, the u.s. ambassador to the united nations who went on national television and said this attack in benghazi, libya, was probably because of this anti-muslim film. >> reporter: exactly. >> she had talking points, right? where did those talking points come from? did they come from petraeus and the cia, were they edited later by the white house, do we know? >> reporter: we don't know. you heard peter king was asked that specific question. according to him and some others, we still don't know exactly where the disconnect was, if you will, between what the intelligence community now says that they believed at the time and the talking points that ended up with susan rice that ended up on television that sunday afterwards. it still doesn't seem to be very clear. the reason why he is now the former cia director is because of the affair that david petraeus had. he resigned one week ago. the question is whether or not that would come up at all. he said it was addressed at the beginning and he regretted what happened and that they didn't really address it at all after
controversial coming out of these briefings, whether or not susan rice, the u.n. ambassador -- the u.s. ambassador to the u.n., had the proper information or was correct in what she said publicly about the attack being probably at that point four days after the attack because of a demonstration. democrats are really to a person coming to her defense aggressively and trying to explain why there was a discrepancy. listen to kent conrad of the democratic member of the senate health care community. >> what is very clear is that ambassador rice used the talking points that the intelligence committee had all signed off on. that is very, very clear. she used the unclassified talking points that were signed off on by the entire intelligence community, so criticisms of her are completely unwarranted. that is very clear. >> and susan, dianne feinstein, just moments ago actually took out and read the unclassified talking points that susan rice used on that day, and they were very short. it sounds like there were two, maybe three points in the talking points, and it was almost certain to change.
's assessment, susan rice's assessment or your own assessment? >> i think what we first learned in the few hours and days immediately after the attack to today, the intelligence has evolved. certainly there was taking time to gather the information, to analyze it and put forward an assessment. what we do know is that when director petraeus came before us on the 14th, the information that he gave us was not the information that was put out by ambassador rice or by the administration. so it begs the question why wasn't a more complete picture given to the american public more quickly than it was? >> okay. you said that the intelligence has evolved, which means just from a layman's term, you would think that as they gathered information, they learned more than things would change. just from people sitting at home and not for partisans or for people who are on capitol hill, are you actually talk ing to each other about -- getting to the bottom of this or is everyone just talking at each other because i would imagine no administration wants anyone to die on their watch. >> certainly we are talking to
.s. -- united nations ambassador susan rice for the benghazi response. here is what the president said. >> as i've said before, she made an appearance at the request of the white house in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. if senator mccain and senator graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. >> okay. so it took senator john mccain about an hour to make it to the s senate floor to offer a response. >> that statement is really remarkable in that if the president thinks that we are picking on people, he really does not have any idea of how serious this issue is. >> seems like the testosterone-fueled rhetoric over benghazi is sort of getting out of control. former cia operative bob behr joins us this morning. good morning, bob. >> good morning. >> i want to make it clear to our viewers what lawmakers want to figure out. there are three separate hearings about to take place today. this is what they're trying to figure out. one, why didn't the united states increase security in libya? two, did the obama administration
that there is support for secretary rice that is susan rice, the u.n. ambassador for the united states, for taking the position had she leaves of hillary clinton as secretary of state. and that name, susan rice, has been bandied about for quite a long time, but now, you know, the drumbeat is increasing and secretary clinton, remember, has said she will leave at the end of the term, that would mean january, but she's also indicated that she might stick around until the president is able to replace her and that would mean, of course, that the president would have to nominate someone and that person would a have to get through the senate. that's where the plot thickens because susan rice, as we all know, is part of this unfolding saga about benghazi and the attack that killed the u.s. ambassador and other americans in libya. so she has been blamed a lot, of course, for coming out and saying that those attacks, that attack was spurred by a video and then later on the administration said that it was terrorism. that could set her up for some really tough times in hearings up on capitol hill, in front of
he's a big fan of ambassador susan rice -- does he have confidence she could pass a national confirmation for any post in a future cabinet? >> i will not engage in speculation of personnel matters. the president believes secretary rice has done an excellent job and is grateful for his service. >> this investigation has been going on for month. how is it that the white house didn't have any idea of this until the day after the election and congress a few days later? >> i refer you to the fbi. they have as i understand it, protocols in place for when they notify the legislative and executive branchs of the investigations. and you know, it is simply a fact that the white house was not aware of the situation regarding general patreaus until wednesday and the situation regarding general allen until friday. so, you know, the fbi's a place to guy in terms of explanation of the protocols they follow. i understand that is the answer that they will give, that there are protocols they follow that govern how they inform the various branchs of government of the investigations. >> do you t
on september 14th was general petraeus saying it was not a terrorist attack. why did susan rice carry that out. the president can't have it both ways. >> hmm. well, the bitter back and forth continues. the house intelligence committee is holding a closed door hearing on the attack that killed u.s. ambassador chris stevens and three other americans. more on the fallout from the libya attack. want to bring in dana bash, and, dana, you have been watching, staking outle intelligence committee hearing. there is reports i guess that there might be a videotape or something. do we know that there is a tape, surveillance tape, that exists of the attack? do we know that? >> well, this comes from our national security correspondent, suzanne, kelly who is reporting that what is going on behind those closed doors. it'seen going, on this t intelligence officials brought with them closed-circumstance yult video which from the compound that was recovered from the compound that, of course, was attacked in benghazi, and they're playing it for these lawmakers and the point, according to suzanne's sources, is to
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)